Betsy DeVos is not an educator, she has never directed a learning institution of any kind, she has no expertise in pedagogy, she has never run a government agency, and neither she nor her kids have ever attended a public school.

So? Maybe that’s exactly what we need, rather than another status quo “expert” the central planning establishment.

The person who runs the Department of Education must ensure that 50 million students - no matter where they are from, how they look, or what accent they pray in - receive equal access to public education through the enforcement of civil rights laws.

Civil rights, indeed. Former Jersey City, New Jersey mayor Bret Schundler properly identified the civil right involved; the right of parental school choice. There is also a more fundamental right involved—the moral right of parents, “no matter where they are from, how they look, or what accent they pray in,” to direct the course of their own children’s education

That requires a passionate commitment to public education and a belief in advancing equity and diversity throughout the vast system.

What about the diversity of individual children, each of whom are unique individuals with her own learning strengths and weaknesses, tolerances and temperaments, interests, and so on? It would be refreshing to have someone with “a passionate commitment” to real diversity instead of the usual elites who see a homogenous “50 million students” pushed through a centrally controlled “public”—i.e., government—school system.

We strongly advocate charters or any targeted school choice initiatives in failing districts, provided they are monitored carefully.

This is selective and discriminatory. Who’s to determine what constitutes failure? What about the parent whose “good” school district she judges to be failing her child? Who should do the careful monitoring? Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy for the Newark parents getting the opportunity to choose a better school, even if a charter is the only other option, and I credit the Star-Ledger for standing up for these parents. But why only them? Where’s the equity in politicians “granting” only select inner city parents school choice, bad as they need it. Why shouldn’t any parent anywhere have school choice, rather than targeting school choice only at politically privileged groups?

Parents everywhere should have the same freedom. I support universal parental school choice through programs that recognize the civil and moral rights of parents—such as universal tax credits that would allow parents to opt out of the government school system, or Education Savings Accounts funded by the per-pupil dollars earmarked for the child’s assigned school district—that allow education tax dollars to follow the child into whatever school the parents choose, be it a charter, traditional public school, or private school.

Never mind the babble about “draining public money” from government schools. So-called public money is private money taxed away for allegedly educational purposes. All parents are taxpayers, and they have the moral right to direct the course of whatever education tax dollars are earmarked for her child. Neo-George Wallaces, those reactionary defenders of the monopolistic public school establishment who want to keep children in rather than out of their traditional government schools, should not be allowed to use taxpayers’ own money to keep their children trapped in schools the parents deem unsuitable to their child’s education well-being.

I don’t know about DeVos’s “qualifications” or “preparedness.” And I certainly don’t approve of government dollars going directly toward religious indoctrination. What I do know is that if DeVos is a “free-market zealot” and the architect of “the for-profit charter explosion in Michigan,” those are pretty good qualifications. The reactionary elites, the alleged champions of childhood education, forget that no “for-profit charter explosion” can happen without an explosion of demand from parents, the people education establishment statists always brush aside.

Not that charter schools are free market, or should be the end goal. A true free market involves the separation of education and state—no government-administered schools and no education taxes, which I doubt DeVos supports. And I don’t agree with vouchers as a means of school choice. But charters are a step in the right direction.

[I]f there's one [cabinet appointee] that should be torpedoed, it's this one.

If there’s one cabinet department that’s deserves someone outside the collectivist philosophy of the Establishment, it’s the Department of Education. So long as she keeps her religiosity to herself, Devos could be a positive force for the civil and moral rights of parents and children. Education is constitutionally the responsibility of the states. The federal role is limited. But if DeVos succeeds in encouraging and expanding parental school choice across America in a way that respects education entrepreneurs’ freedom from crushing government mandates, she will have been a great Education Secretary.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

So there was another big March on Washington. Just like the big 2009 Tea Party March against Bush/Obama statism that my wife, daughter, and I participated in, in this March there were many different causes represented. The one I’m interested in was the subject of a New Jersey Star-Ledger letter titled Protesting an Illegitimate President by Arlene Stein. In her letter, Stein wrote:

Our democratic process was severely compromised in November -- by foreign meddling, by an Electoral College system that is outdated, and by the circulation of false information on the internet.

I left these comments, edited for clarity:

Arlene Stein is wrong across the board.

First, let me disclose that, though I’m a reluctant Trump voter, I am neither a fan of Trump nor am I defending Trump here. Rather, I’m defending the integrity of the 2016 election, which has been unfairly maligned as “compromised” by the uniformed.

“Foreign meddling” in American politics is nothing new. Foreign interests, including governments, have always sought to influence the direction of American politics. Both Alexander Hamilton in 1793 and George Washington in 1796 warned against foreign influence, and the Prohibiting Foreign Influence in American Elections Act was passed way back in 1971. Foreign election meddling is nothing new. But the meddling doesn’t end with elections. Washington DC is flooded with foreign lobbies. As the Huffington Post reports, “Domestic interest groups aren’t the only ones working the halls of Congress. For decades, foreign governments have paid a pretty penny to hire U.S. firms to get their interests on the U.S. agenda.” Not that any of the foreign meddling is good or defensible. The important point is that there is no evidence of vote tampering in the 2016 election. To selectively condemn the 2016 election results because of “foreign meddling” is just political hackism.

The only thing new about “the circulation of false information on the internet” is the internet, not the false information. As The Daily Signal reports, “The truth is that while the American media landscape has been in a constant state of change over two centuries, the spread of hyperpartisan, scurrilous, and even phony news stories has been more common than uncommon throughout the history of the republic.” Again, Stein is being selective and non-objective.

Finally, whether you believe that the “Electoral College system . . . is outdated” or a still vital part of the American Constitution’s checks and balances, it is the Constitutional law of the land.

I have to marvel at the whiny hypocrisy of the sore losers who are now calling Donald Trump illegitimate because he failed to win the national popular vote. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the consensus right up to election night was consistently predicting a close popular vote but a large win for Hillary in the Electoral College. We regularly heard that Trump had a difficult “path to victory” based on the electoral map, even at points where he pulled even or slightly ahead in the popular tracking polls. Where were these high-minded Hillary supporters when it looked like the Electoral College would work in her favor? Not a peep.

The 2000 and 2016 elections are brought up a lot. But what about the 2004 election between George W. Bush and John Kerry? That race almost produced an exactly opposite result, that time favoring the Democrat Kerry. In 2004, a swing of a mere 60,000 votes in Ohio, which Bush narrowly won, would have handed John Kerry that state’s 20 Electoral votes, making Kerry the president with a 271-266 Electoral vote win despite G. W. Bush’s 3+ million national popular vote majority. Bush’s national popular vote margin was larger than Hillary’s, yet Kerry came within a whisker of victory. Again, where are the complaints when the Electoral College works in favor of Democrats?

Does anybody really believe that, had Trump won the national popular vote but lost the election, or if Kerry had squeaked by in Ohio, that these same folks would be marching on Washington to scream their heads off about how “unfair” it all is or refusing to attend the inaugurations of the “illegitimate” President John Kerry or President Hillary Clinton? Don’t make me laugh.

Trump and Clinton both went in and played by the same rules. Both campaigned for an Electoral Vote majority, which is based on 51 separate popular vote contests—the states plus the District of Columbia. Neither campaigned fora national popular vote majority, so that result is utterly meaningless. What counts is that Trump won the independent popular vote in 30 states totalling 306 electoral votes. Clinton won 21 times (including the District of Columbia) for a total of 232 Electoral votes. Trump won the election solidly fair and square. Trump is the legitimately elected president of the United States.

I actually sympathize with some of the causes of the protesters, such as opposing a Muslim-American registry. But not with those who claim Trump is not a legitimate president. That is “the whining of bad losers.” I suggest Arlene get real and start concerning herself with real issues.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Education secretary, came under heavy fire from the traditional public school establishment and from reactionary Democrats for her support for parental school choice and in particular for charter schools.

I'm experiencing a feeling of deja vu all over again and wondering if the Democrats' attacks on DeVos and school choice will simply produce a tsunami of reaction when the next national election comes around -- one that results in Republicans winning percentages of the minority vote not seen since the post-Civil War years, when the Democrats tried, in turn, to block the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery), the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment (providing equal protection under the law). The school choice issue cuts powerfully. It is the civil rights battle of our generation -- and history has a way of rolling over those who resist the advancement of social justice.

I have taught in Newark's district schools for 17 years. Currently, I am in a school that works on behalf of the students. I would love to say that this is a consistent practice; but that is not the case in many schools.

As a district teacher, I have seen firsthand unbelievable bureaucratic waste. For years, the lack of consistent educational guidelines from the district offices, have caused conflicts in teaching and learning. Each change brings costly rounds of education materials, trainings, and curriculum development.

It is frustrating as a teacher in Newark and an alum of the Newark public school system to see first-hand what is happening in Newark. But as a mother, it is terrifying.

Charter schools are a threat to the education establishment because they are more independent, largely non-union, and generally highly successful, even though they are funded by the same tax dollars that fund the traditional public schools. Typically, the money that would go to the traditional public school follows the child into the charter school should the parents so choose.

I believe in an education free market based on a complete separation of education and state. However, we can make progress toward educational freedom through various means, such as properly structured tax credits or education savings accounts (in which the per-pupil cost of the child’s local public school district gets deposited into a special account for parents to use according to their own judgement on what educational options are best for their child).

Charter schools are a positive option from a rights perspective. I am not a supporter of a Federal Education Department or of any federal involvement in education. But since we are stuck with it, let’s wish DeVos success in defeating the reactionary anti-choice demagogues, and in using the federal government’s influence to advance school choice across America.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

In Senate confirmation hearings over Trumps nominee for Health and Human Services, “democratic socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders lobbed Representative Tom Price, a supposed advocate of free market healthcare, a big fat fastball down the middle of the plate. Sanders asked Price point blank if he believed healthcare is a right. Price didn’t just swing and miss. He didn’t even swing, taking all the way for a called strike.

Sanders’ question gets to the moral heart of the debate over healthcare policy in particular and the proper role of government more broadly. A confident and true advocate of free markets and the principles of a free society would have knocked Sanders’ pitch out of the park. As Kimberly Alters reports for The Week:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who made the idea of health care as a "right" a central idea of his presidential campaign and has pushed a federally run single-payer system, was unimpressed with Price's promises and grilled the representative during his questions Wednesday. "Do you believe that health care is a right of all Americans whether they're rich or they're poor?" Sanders asked.

Price began his response by saying that America is a "compassionate society" — to which Sanders immediately objected.

You can watch the 1 minute 27 second exchange here, then read my version of how I wish Price had answered:

“There is nothing compassionate about ‘helping’ workers, children, and elderly people classified as ‘poor’ by forcing coercive redistributionist or regularly government policies or some other form of involuntary obligations on others. Nothing. Once you violate people’s right to govern their own affairs and decide for themselves how to use their own time or earned money, including on matters of charity and voluntary economic contract, you forfeit your right to the label ‘compassionate.’

“As far as health care as a right, let’s properly define rights. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action to pursue your own goals and flourishing, not a guaranteed claim on goods and services that others must be forced to provide. A guarantee of healthcare that others are forced to pay for or provide may be classified as a government privilege. But it is not a right. If you want to debate whether the government should be in the business of giving unearned privileges to some people at the coerced expense of others, we can debate that. But we must be clear that there is no right to goods and services that others must be forced to provide, because there is no right to access to other people’s wallets or time against their will. No, Senator, health care is not a right. That idea is un-American.”

Sadly, Price instead vaguely promised that every American will be guaranteed healthcare access. As Jeva Lange reported for The Week:

Price laid out his six principles for health care, including "affordability, accessibility, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices." "No one is interested in pulling the rug out from anybody," he said, addressing many Americans' concerns about losing their insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

Understandably, “Many on the left were unimpressed by his promises . . .,” Lange concluded.

So was I, to say the least. Why? Because free markets imply the absence of government coercion, and you can’t guarantee universal health care without government coercion.

It’s certainly true that free market reforms must be phased in over time to give people and the markets time to adjust. No one is expecting Republicans to achieve or even advocate at this time a fully free health care market in one draconian politically and practically unrealistic step. But if Republicans are unwilling or afraid to state the principles of free markets—that is, individual rights—up front in direct and transparent challenge to the socialists’ brazen assertions, then there is no hope of ever achieving a free market. How on Earth are Republicans to build on today’s free market reforms, to the extent Republicans can enact them, if they don’t state the animating principles of free markets and a free society explicitly? On what basis do they prevent a rollback of their reforms in the future, let alone take the next step forward?

The Left is unabashedly open in stating their [collectivist] principles, which is why socialism keeps advancing in America, despite occasional retrenchments. And it didn’t take long for the Left to seize on Price’s moral cowardice. Editorialized the New Jersey Star-Ledger, “When pressed by Sen. Bernie Sanders about whether he views health care as a right, Price deflected: ‘We're a compassionate society,’ he said. Americans deserve ‘access’ to high-quality health care.” “So rest easy,” mocked the Star-Ledger, “much like everyone has access to a $10 million house, or a 40-foot yacht, or $29 cocktails at the D.C. Trump hotel, they will have access to health care under the Trump administration.” Such is what to expect when moral confidence meets apologetic evasiveness.

To be fair, Price has been hired by a Leftist boss who has promised, as the Star-Ledger observed, “that no one -no one! - who currently has health coverage under Obamacare will lose it. ‘There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it,’ Trump said last weekend. ‘That's not going to happen with us.’"

But that’s really beside the point. It’s not enough to clash on policy. Free marketeers must challenge on moral fundamentals. Only on that basis can we then entertain political compromises; compromises that score net, lasting gains for liberty. Sanders gave Price a gift—a chance to seize the moral high ground and thus political momentum for free marketeers in front of a nationally televised audience—and Price caved. He blew it. Shameful. What a missed opportunity.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

A column by Paul Mulshine, Donald Trump talks to a Jersey guy about a long-overdue debate on climate change, point to a hopeful new approach to climate change from the new Donald Trump Administration. You never know with the erratic Trump, who, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, went from the ridiculous claim that global warming is “a hoax fabricated by the Chinese” to being “open to upholding the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases.”

But as Mulshine reports, Trump has consulted a top skeptic of the theory of CO2-caused climate catastrophe. Mulshine writes:

Last week the president-elect had a talk on the issue of climate change with the Princeton physics professor who is my go-to guy on climate questions, William Happer.

Happer told me he couldn't discuss the issue at the moment, but "Maybe in a week or two after Mr. Trump makes some personnel decisions."

I certainly hope one of those decisions is to put Happer in a prominent position in the incoming Trump administration.

Happer and another Princeton physicist, the brilliant Freeman Dyson, are both of the opinion that atmospheric CO-2 will likely have some effect on climate, but that the effect has been greatly exaggerated.

For that they are often classified as climate-change "deniers." But they don't deny climate change. They simply argue that the change will likely be for the better.

Mulshine argues that “climate alarmists [have] shut off what should be a vibrant political debate” but that “now it looks like we are finally going to have a political debate that is long overdue.”

I left these comments:

“[I]t looks like we are finally going to have a political debate that is long overdue.”

And how refreshing that would be! The climate catastrophists with their dogmatic “the debate is over” mantra have had the upper hand for too long.

I suggest Trump should immediately suspend America’s membership in the Paris Climate Accord, as he promised, and submit the treaty to Congress for ratification, as it should have been. That should get the debate off to a fast start.

(Yes, I know, Obama sidestepped the Constitution by claiming the agreement is not a treaty and thus not required to be ratified by Congress. He may or may not be technically right. But Obama often acted more like a King who rules over subjects than a president who serves citizens. His end run around Congress may not be technically unconstitutional but it certainly violates the spirit of the Treaty Clause, which states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”)

------------------------------------

Personally, I think the Climate Paris Agreement is a disaster for America. It commits Americans, in principle, to sacrificing their energy security, economic well-being, and quality of life for the sake of President Obama’s “environmental legacy,” in the process apologizing for America’s virtues—its freedom and its consequent economic prosperity—while allowing the rest of the world to expand fossil fuels and greenhouse gases as they [smartly] please. This, in the name of American “leadership” on climate change (what about economic leadership?).

However, a vigorous ratification debate in the Senate would be great for Americans. Whatever emerges from the Senate, a proper and illuminating debate on climate change, fossil fuels, energy in general, and what to do about them is likely to advance the cause of objective and balanced analysis of these important issues, and give voice to all of those “skeptics” who have been vilified and marginalized for so long as “deniers.”

Friday, January 20, 2017

Democratic Rep. John Lewis says he's doesn't consider Donald Trump a "legitimate president," because, he claims, the Russians helped him win the White House. Consequently, Lewis said he would not attend Trump’s inauguration today (1/20/17). So reported the Associated Press.

As AP continued, quoting Lewis, “‘I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.’” AP also quoted another Democrat, Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, as mentioning that “the majority of voters did not vote for Trump.” AP observed that “Democrat Clinton received 2.9 million more votes than Trump but lost the Electoral College vote.”

Donald Trump reacted to Lewis on Twitter, attacking his record in representing his Georgia district. I will not defend Trump’s tactic, although he does have a right to rebuttal. My point is to defend the Electoral College as well as the integrity of the election.

The Russian activities such as the DNC hack and release of information is not the same as vote tampering. Voters are subjected to a flood of news and information, much of it false or half true, from all kinds of sources. Foreign attempts to influence American elections is not a new phenomenon. The Russian activities were illegal and should be taken very seriously. But that does not rise to the level of tampering with actual votes, voting machines and processes, or the counting of votes. That would de-legitimize the election. But that did not happen. It’s up to Americans to consider the information before voting. True, many Americans are not thoughtful voters. But thoughtlessly shallow voters are not a monopoly of the Republican Party. Russian shenanigans notwithstanding, Americans made up their own minds and cast their votes, all of which were counted. End of story.

Lewis himself did not mention the dichotomy of results between the popular vote and Electoral College, at least not according to reports. He’s probably too smart and too experienced a politician to stoop to accusing Trump of being illegitimate in that respect, given that he was duly and constitutionally elected. But it was mentioned in the article, and many of lesser character cling to the popular vote/Electoral vote disparity in a desperate attempt to advance the notion that Trump is illegitimate.

There is nothing sacred about a national popular vote—not in a constitutional republic based on rule of law and limited, individual rights-protecting government; not in a United States of America. The national popular vote is irrelevant—and logically so—given the wide diversity of interests and concerns among the people in the states. In fact, if you take out California, by far the biggest state, Trump won the national popular vote by 1.5 million (at last count). California went for Clinton by a 4.3 million vote margin. That’s a lopsided 62-32%, way out of touch with the national electoral mainstream but enough to swing the national popular vote totals to Clinton. If you take out New York, another big state with a similarly lopsided Clinton margin, Trump won the other 48 states by 3.2 million. There were no large states that went for Trump by anything close to the CA-NY margins. Even reliably Republican Texas, the second biggest state, only gave Trump a 9% point margin. I mention this only so one can easily see why the national totals are irrelevant.

It’s interesting that, for all of the Left’s concern for “diversity,” so many of them care so little about meaningful diversity. We always hear about “polarization.” The Electoral College, by encouraging presidential candidates to recognize the diversity across the states, tends to reduce that polarization. That’s a good thing—and we have the Electoral College to thank for that.

Though a reluctant Trump voter, I am not a Trump fan. But I have to say: The whiny sore losers who are now calling Donald Trump illegitimate because he failed to win the national popular vote are hypocrites. Throughout the 2016 campaign, most pollsters were consistently predicting a close popular vote but a large win for Hillary in the Electoral College. We regularly heard that Trump had a difficult “path to victory” based on the electoral map, even at points where he pulled even or slightly ahead in the popular tracking polls. Where were these high-minded Hillary supporters when it looked like the Electoral College would work in her favor? Not a peep.

And what about the 2004 election between George W. Bush and John Kerry? That race almost produced an exactly opposite result, favoring the Democrat Kerry. In 2004, a swing of a mere 60,000 votes in Ohio, which Bush narrowly won, would have handed John Kerry that state’s 20 Electoral votes, making Kerry the president with a 271-266 electoral win despite G. W. Bush’s 3+ million national popular vote majority. Bush’s margin was larger than Hillary’s, yet Kerry came within a whisker of victory.

Does anybody really believe that, had Trump won the national popular vote but lost the election, or if Kerry had squeaked by in Ohio, that these same folks would be screaming their heads off about how “unfair” it all is or refusing to attend the inaugurations of the “illegitimate” President Kerry or President Hillary Clinton? Don’t make me laugh.

Trump and Clinton both went in and played by the same rules. Both campaigned for an Electoral Vote majority, not a popular vote majority. Trump won the election fair and square. Trump is the legitimately elected president of the United States.

About Me

Greetings and welcome to my blog. My name is Michael A. (Mike) LaFerrara. I sometimes use the pen or "screen" name "Mike Zemack" or "Zemack" in online activism, such as posted comments on articles. “Zemack” stands for the first letters of the names of my six grandchildren (I now have seven, so I've also used "Zemack+1"). I was born in 1949 in New Jersey, U.S.A., where I retired from a career in the plumbing, building controls, and construction industries, and still reside with my wife of 44 years. The purpose of my blog is the discussion of a wide range of topics relating to human events from the perspective of Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, rational self-interest, and capitalism originated by Ayn Rand.

As Rand observed: “The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher.” I am certainly not the philosopher. But neither am I a field agent, or general. I am a foot soldier in that Objectivist army that fights for an individualist society in which every person can live in dignified sovereignty, by his own reasoned judgment, for his own sake, in that state of peaceful coexistence with his fellow man that only capitalist political and economic freedom can provide. While I am a fully committed Objectivist, my opinions are based on my own understanding of Objectivism, and should not be taken as definitive “Objectivist positions.” For the full story of my journey toward Objectivism, see my Introduction.

One final introductory note: I strongly recommend Philosophy, Who Needs it, which highlights the inescapable importance of philosophy in every individual's life. I can be reached at mal.atlas@comcast.net. Thanks, Mike LaFerrara.

Recommended Essays/Videos

Quotes I Like

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.—Francisco d'Anconia

I love getting older...I get to grow up and learn things. Madalyn, 5 years old, Montesorri student, and my grand-daughter

The best thing one can do for the poor is to not become one of them. Author Unknown

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Francis Bacon

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan

Thinking is hard work. If it weren't, more people would do it. Henry Ford

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries. Ayn Rand